Prevalence of Antimicrobial Resistance among Clinical Isolates of Bacteroides fragilis Group in Canada in 2010-2011: CANWARD Surveillance Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical isolates of the Bacteroides fragilis group (n = 387) were collected from patients attending nine Canadian hospitals in 2010-2011 and tested for susceptibility to 10 antimicrobial agents using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) broth microdilution method. B. fragilis (59.9%), Bacteroides ovatus (16.3%), and Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron (12.7%) accounted for ~90% of isolates collected. Overall rates of percent susceptibility were as follows: 99.7%, metronidazole; 99.5%, piperacillin-tazobactam; 99.2%, imipenem; 97.7%, ertapenem; 92.0%, doripenem; 87.3%, amoxicillin-clavulanate; 80.9%, tigecycline; 65.9%, cefoxitin; 55.6%, moxifloxacin; and 52.2%, clindamycin. Percent susceptibility to cefoxitin, clindamycin, and moxifloxacin was lowest for B. thetaiotaomicron (n = 49, 24.5%), Parabacteroides distasonis/P. merdae (n = 11, 9.1%), and B. ovatus (n = 63, 31.8%), respectively. One isolate (B. thetaiotaomicron) was resistant to metronidazole, and two isolates (both B. fragilis) were resistant to both piperacillin-tazobactam and imipenem. Since the last published surveillance study describing Canadian isolates of B. fragilis group almost 20 years ago (A.-M. Bourgault et al., Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 36:343-347, 1992), rates of resistance have increased for amoxicillin-clavulanate, from 0.8% (1992) to 6.2% (2010-2011), and for clindamycin, from 9% (1992) to 34.1% (2010-2011).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".